MMA News Forums » MMA Forums » General MMA Forum

[Punk Ass]

Originally Posted by bigc

i dont know about you but i am gettin tired of losers fighting on pay per view example ufc 62 wes combs got his ass kicked at ultimate fight night gets a chance to fight at ufc 62 gets his ass kicked again and nick diaz 3 losses in a row gets a chance to fight at ufc 62 he beat a loser josh neer and at ufc 63 danny abbadi is fighting theres so many more but im to tired to type them what do you think about it

I agree. Most people on here are just used to sub par fighters because unfortuatly the UFC's fighters suck. Sure a dude may be an exciting fighter, sure he may have some skills(or he wouldnt be in there). but the fact is 3 losses in a row means you suck and should not be on pay per view. I'll watch on ulltimate fight night but Pay per view is supposed to be the best of the best.
Honestly, for a fighter to be considered one of the best he has to be dominant and not lose, always find a way to win, most of the time. for example, Wandy rarely loses, it was years before he resently lost to a much bigger fighter. Chuck as much as I dont like him, he has proven himself. Fedor, the prime example of a winner, even matt hughes(whom I hate) rarely loses. But Nick diaz?? Come on people, don't you respect your self a little bit more than to subject yourself to losers? the proof is in the record, I dont care how close the fight is, a loss is a loss and he sucks

[killerinstinct]

Originally Posted by harlemhustla145

I agree. Most people on here are just used to sub par fighters because unfortuatly the UFC's fighters suck. Sure a dude may be an exciting fighter, sure he may have some skills(or he wouldnt be in there). but the fact is 3 losses in a row means you suck and should not be on pay per view. I'll watch on ulltimate fight night but Pay per view is supposed to be the best of the best.
Honestly, for a fighter to be considered one of the best he has to be dominant and not lose, always find a way to win, most of the time. for example, Wandy rarely loses, it was years before he resently lost to a much bigger fighter. Chuck as much as I dont like him, he has proven himself. Fedor, the prime example of a winner, even matt hughes(whom I hate) rarely loses. But Nick diaz?? Come on people, don't you respect your self a little bit more than to subject yourself to losers? the proof is in the record, I dont care how close the fight is, a loss is a loss and he sucks

Nick Diaz doesn't suck.That's just ridiculous to say that.He deserves to come back ,b/c he took the fight on less than a weaks notice.He's a decent draw and is a very exciting fighter.

Also how the hell can you say that the UFC fighters suck?How the hell does Chuck Liddell,GSP,BJ Penn,Matt Hughes,Tim Sylvia,Babalu,and many others suck?

[killerinstinct]

Originally Posted by matto

calling any fighter a loser is just plain disrespectful(unless its tim sylvia or tatinari gomi) calling neer and diaz losers? thats funny. yes wes combes isnt the best, and yes danny abbadi is probably gay, but id like to see u say that to their faces.

Who the hell is tatinari gomi?

[Boo]

Originally Posted by killerinstinct

Who the hell is tatinari gomi?

He must mean Takanori Gomi.

[Mac]

Originally Posted by bigc

i dont know about you but i am gettin tired of losers fighting on pay per view example ufc 62 wes combs got his ass kicked at ultimate fight night gets a chance to fight at ufc 62 gets his ass kicked again and nick diaz 3 losses in a row gets a chance to fight at ufc 62 he beat a loser josh neer and at ufc 63 danny abbadi is fighting theres so many more but im to tired to type them what do you think about it

You know by your logic B.J. Penn wouldn't be on this card because he lost 2 of his last 3 fights. If fighters weren't brought back after losses the ranks would thin out pretty quickly.

[ArMnHC]

Originally Posted by harlemhustla145

I agree. Most people on here are just used to sub par fighters because unfortuatly the UFC's fighters suck. Sure a dude may be an exciting fighter, sure he may have some skills(or he wouldnt be in there). but the fact is 3 losses in a row means you suck and should not be on pay per view. I'll watch on ulltimate fight night but Pay per view is supposed to be the best of the best.
Honestly, for a fighter to be considered one of the best he has to be dominant and not lose, always find a way to win, most of the time. for example, Wandy rarely loses, it was years before he resently lost to a much bigger fighter. Chuck as much as I dont like him, he has proven himself. Fedor, the prime example of a winner, even matt hughes(whom I hate) rarely loses. But Nick diaz?? Come on people, don't you respect your self a little bit more than to subject yourself to losers? the proof is in the record, I dont care how close the fight is, a loss is a loss and he sucks

dude, you're crazy! 3 losses in a row...Diaz actually won his last fight in Stockton CA, before his fight with Neer! i'm not much of a Diaz fan, but i'm not gunna take away from his skills one bit. he is a name people know and will be in the UFC for a long time. he deserves to be there. and those 3 losses you refer to were all decision losses. besides the loss to Sherk, they were fights that could have gone either way, especially his fight with Diego. the proof is in the record huh? Diaz record is 13-6...so that means you're also saying someone like Randy Couture, whose record was 14-8, sucks ass then too huh? assface !!!

[AudieMurphy1]

Originally Posted by LILMAC

You know by your logic B.J. Penn wouldn't be on this card because he lost 2 of his last 3 fights. If fighters weren't brought back after losses the ranks would thin out pretty quickly.

i completely agree, this is not an easy sport, these guys that lose are really good and have proven that they can hang in this sport which typically makes for better competition, which is what this is really all about, seeing really good fights between really good fighters

[mattsoper]

Originally Posted by harlemhustla145

I agree. Most people on here are just used to sub par fighters because unfortuatly the UFC's fighters suck. Sure a dude may be an exciting fighter, sure he may have some skills(or he wouldnt be in there). but the fact is 3 losses in a row means you suck and should not be on pay per view. I'll watch on ulltimate fight night but Pay per view is supposed to be the best of the best.
Honestly, for a fighter to be considered one of the best he has to be dominant and not lose, always find a way to win, most of the time. for example, Wandy rarely loses, it was years before he resently lost to a much bigger fighter. Chuck as much as I dont like him, he has proven himself. Fedor, the prime example of a winner, even matt hughes(whom I hate) rarely loses. But Nick diaz?? Come on people, don't you respect your self a little bit more than to subject yourself to losers? the proof is in the record, I dont care how close the fight is, a loss is a loss and he sucks

he was gone from the UFC after three losses, but they were not horrible losses where he got knockout of subbed...they were all decisions....he then wins his next fightsomewhere else...so now a fighter goes down and the ask one guy to step in(jake shields)..he declines so they ask maybe the only guy left (nick diaz)...The UFC probably seen that this guy had great potential and knew that he could do much better than his three losses...so they bring in him in on five days nmotice and the guy wins the fight...how do you NOT have respect for the guy after that fight

[Punk Ass]

Originally Posted by ArMnHC

dude, you're crazy! 3 losses in a row...Diaz actually won his last fight in Stockton CA, before his fight with Neer! i'm not much of a Diaz fan, but i'm not gunna take away from his skills one bit. he is a name people know and will be in the UFC for a long time. he deserves to be there. and those 3 losses you refer to were all decision losses. besides the loss to Sherk, they were fights that could have gone either way, especially his fight with Diego. the proof is in the record huh? Diaz record is 13-6...so that means you're also saying someone like Randy Couture, whose record was 14-8, sucks ass then too huh? assface !!!

I never really liked Couture anyway. He's just a good wrestler who can't do much of anything else. But he's great at wrestling. So yeh he sucks because 14 and 8 is horrible he just went down in weight and started to pick on little guys, real men move up in weight not down.

I didn't say Diaz doesn't deserve to be in the ufc I just think he needs to be on ultimate fight night or some other televized ufc show because only the best of the best needs to be on PPV.

And I'm not saying UFC doesn't have any good fighters, I just think Pride has better talent, and deeper talent in there respective divisions

[AudieMurphy1]

Originally Posted by harlemhustla145

I never really liked Couture anyway. He's just a good wrestler who can't do much of anything else. But he's great at wrestling. So yeh he sucks because 14 and 8 is horrible he just went down in weight and started to pick on little guys, real men move up in weight not down.

I didn't say Diaz doesn't deserve to be in the ufc I just think he needs to be on ultimate fight night or some other televized ufc show because only the best of the best needs to be on PPV.

And I'm not saying UFC doesn't have any good fighters, I just think Pride has better talent, and deeper talent in there respective divisions

i think the thing that has helped pride get an edge in the talent department has been not tossing a guy into the trsh pile after a few losses